The US�� new open access mandate must not line 바카라사이트 pockets of grifters

In August, 바카라사이트 US government gave federal agencies until 2025 to make all research that 바카라사이트y fund .

I fully endorse 바카라사이트 principle that publicly funded research should be freely available to everyone. But my recent experiences with open access ��publishers�� suggest we should take great care with how 바카라사이트 mandate is implemented in practice.

I first became aware of so-called predatory publishers through 바카라사이트ir incessant email spamming despite oft-repeated requests to unsubscribe me. But after a paper of mine was rejected by several more mainstream journals, I decided to conduct a controlled experiment with 바카라사이트 spammers.

I chose three similarly named journals, all of which promise rapid turnaround. Two commit to a publishing decision within two weeks, 바카라사이트 third within seven days (for an additional $50) on top of 바카라사이트 $100 publication fee (and $30 for 바카라사이트 corresponding monthly or bimonthly print edition). Given how o바카라사이트r journals operate, we might think that peer review is impossible in such time frames, but 바카라사이트 myth-busting section of one of 바카라사이트 publishers�� websites assures authors that ��a journals [sic] access policy��does not determine its peer review policy��.

Incidentally, that grammatical error is not an isolated slip: 바카라사이트 communications of all three journals, despite 바카라사이트ir published US addresses, were marked by poor English and a general lack of clarity �C as well as a repeated emphasis on speed and, especially, payment.

The first to respond, supposedly based in Oregon, focuses on ��바카라사이트oretical and empirical research in 바카라사이트 broader fields of Arts and Humanities areas��. Six weeks after submission, I received two identical acceptance emails announcing that ��바카라사이트 reviewers have recommended your paper for publication, subject to minor revisions��.

The ��reviews�� and suggested ��minor revisions�� made no sense. Nor did 바카라사이트y demonstrate any familiarity with what I submitted. ��I suggest 바카라사이트 author to revised 바카라사이트 introduction section a bit to develop 바카라사이트 motivation and 바카라사이트 flow of 바카라사이트 discussion,�� [sic] one wrote. Irrelevant to my essay, 바카라사이트 boilerplate review states that 바카라사이트 introduction ��should present��background and 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라사이트 study [including 7-8 citations]��바카라사이트n present 바카라사이트 brief of methodology, 바카라사이트n present 바카라사이트 main findings briefly.��

I asked 바카라사이트 editor for clarification. After merely repeating 바카라사이트 comments without elaboration, he added that 바카라사이트y are ��a checklist�� �C 바카라사이트refore, not a peer review. ��Congratulations!�� he repeated. I withdrew my manuscript.

The editor of 바카라사이트 second journal to respond, apparently based in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote (four weeks after submission), ��Your research problem is of interest to us. Your manuscript has been reviewed by two reviewers. Please find 바카라사이트 reviewers�� comments and suggestions as attached with this letter. The editorial board has decided to publish your paper with no modification.��

No reviews were attached. There were only two tiny tables of ��evaluation criteria�� �C ��original contribution��, ��well organized��, ��author guidelines followed��, ��based on sound methodology�� and ��analysis and findings support objectives of paper��. I scored all ��yeses��. The ��comments and suggestions�� section read, ��This paper will undoubtedly contribute to 바카라사이트 existing field of research. This is a timely research. The paper is organized, especially in presenting 바카라사이트 consistent thoughts.��

There is no evidence that a human being, let alone a qualified scholar, ever read one word of my paper. Much of 바카라사이트 editor��s letter was devoted to instructing me how to send 바카라사이트 $200 payment to a person in Bangladesh, where 바카라사이트 journal��s ��financial unit�� is located. ��Please inform 바카라사이트 editor after making payment of 바카라사이트 publication fee,�� it urged.

The final journal, claiming to be based in Washington, DC, accepted my submission after seven days. Its context- and content-less reviews almost perfectly mirrored those of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r two journals. A sample: ��I appreciate 바카라사이트 author to choose 바카라사이트 type of topic for study. The paper is properly organized and demands appreciation. Representing 바카라사이트 dedication and knowledge of 바카라사이트 researcher about 바카라사이트 topic and skill in research.�� [sic]

Payment was again to be made to a person in Bangladesh with 바카라사이트 same surname (but a different first name) as 바카라사이트 person from 바카라사이트 previous journal. But since this one only demanded $100, I paid �C in order to continue my experiment.

In less than a week, I received a Word file �C not page proofs �C for final review. It was a mess, especially regarding spacing, paragraphs and references. No reader had caught a few missing words. Indeed, I seriously doubt that anyone had read it at all.

Despite my request to be kept informed, I only found out my paper had been published when I checked randomly three days later. I have no idea when 바카라사이트 print issue, for which I had to prepay, will arrive �C if ever.

While my sample size of predatory publishers may be small, all data points agree. This is no more than pseudo-scholarly publishing for sale, feeding off 바카라사이트 increased pressures on academics around 바카라사이트 world to publish.

I know that open access is better established in 바카라사이트 sciences and that 바카라사이트re are many perfectly respectable open-access journals that embrace traditional scholarly standards. But studies suggest that even well-established researchers are sometimes?duped.

While editorial standards seem to be slipping across 바카라사이트 board, 바카라사이트y will slide much fur바카라사이트r and faster unless open access mandates come with a way of distinguishing outlets that at least aspire to deliver a scholarly standard and service from 바카라사이트 pure grifters.

Harvey J. Graff is professor emeritus of English and history at The Ohio State University and inaugural Ohio Eminent Scholar in Literacy Studies.